-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
980 Vs Nano
- Thread starter P4Clock
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,754
- Location
- Planet Earth
The thing is though(at least with me) I am governed by price/performance so if there was a £200 GTX970 against a £260 R9 390 I would probably say to buy the former.
Plus,most people who would say to buy the R9 390 over a GTX970 at the same price-point are looking at it's performance now in a range of games,and maybe some prior trends.
If the R9 390 was only doing well in DX12,then nobody would be saying to buy one base on that alone.
Also,the GTX970 was faster than a R9 290X at launch,and that was stock clocked cards,ie,according to Nvidia specs. The pre-overclocked GTX970 cards kicked the R9 290X to the kerb.
People who just hung on their R9 290 series cards,have gotten a decent amount of life out of them. The aftermarket R9 290 cards could be had for just over £300 with a few months of launch.
Anyway,as I mentioned early I have got things to do,so that is my contribution to the thread now.
Last edited:
It really is, as there are a tiny handful of games released so far.
Out of like, the three or four DX12 games we actually have, everyone seems to conveniently discount or forget Tomb Raider where Nvidia do very well in in comparison to AMD
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-03/...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd
It's far too early to tell if AMD are better overall in DX12 given the limited number of DX12 titles. What is clearly obvious from those slides is that AMD CPUs are very competitive in DX12 to the point they are totally viable as an enthusiast gaming PC for DX12 games.
Wow, the tommy love is strong today.
Your confusing a single users realism with flip flopping...
Can you quote me some of my posts where I jump in and vehemently defend Nv when they are getting grief?
Flip flopping, hmm, lets see...
Your reading that...
I said AMD CrossFire is crap?
Nope, said it was too much hassle with GW's and the hassles are gone running a slower single gpu..
I defend GW's?
Nope, said it's easier to live with on Nv, even said I wasn't going to insult anyone's intelligence and profess Nv get their drivers right
=
Not mentioning who has 'better' drivers, I only commented on the waiting game for release day drivers-nothing more, nothing less...
Nv dropping performance on older gen now?
I disagreed and said it was milked since Maxwell launch...
I said Maxwell performance will drop off a cliff when Pascal hits...
That's hardcore NV?
I'm waiting on the Nv hardcore taking issue now
*Note*
I challenged/defended nothing you posted other than pointing out what I have/haven't said and what I believe you/others interpreted wrongly in this thread partly because I changed brand-if it was flip flopping, there 100% would be countless pro Nv posts/threads with challenging everything against Nv.
Indeed.
Wow, the tommy love is strong today.
Your confusing a single users realism with flip flopping...
Can you quote me some of my posts where I jump in and vehemently defend Nv when they are getting grief?
Flip flopping, hmm, lets see...
Your reading that...
I said AMD CrossFire is crap?
Nope, said it was too much hassle with GW's and the hassles are gone running a slower single gpu..
I defend GW's?
Nope, said it's easier to live with on Nv, even said I wasn't going to insult anyone's intelligence and profess Nv get their drivers right
=
Not mentioning who has 'better' drivers, I only commented on the waiting game for release day drivers-nothing more, nothing less...
Nv dropping performance on older gen now?
I disagreed and said it was milked since Maxwell launch...
I said Maxwell performance will drop off a cliff when Pascal hits...
That's hardcore NV?
I'm waiting on the Nv hardcore taking issue now
*Note*
I challenged/defended nothing you posted other than pointing out what I have/haven't said and what I believe you/others interpreted wrongly in this thread partly because I changed brand-if it was flip flopping, there 100% would be countless pro Nv posts/threads with challenging everything against Nv.
It's easy to say you are against many things amd or nvidia do or say but it's another to bite the bullet and buy something you want, not out of loyalty to a brand but because that suits you regardless of what people say, like you and humbug have done.
Hats off to both of you
If Polaris is what I hope it will be then i will be ditching nvidia for amd. I have always felt let down by AMD launches though so I'm not holding my breath.
Wow, the tommy love is strong today.
Your confusing a single users realism with flip flopping...
You posted plenty of posts about how AMD multi GPU was a poor experience for you (the word crap will suffice) because CF release day drivers on GW games was/is non-existent for CF. This is a valid complaint and one I 100% agree with but to claim your experience is much better since you went to Nvidia is fallacious because you went with a single GTX970. Try SLI, or single AMD GPU before comparing both because you are comparing apples to oranges.
Going singe AMD GPU would have given you a similar hassle free experience with regards to gaming experience etc.
FWIW I tried CF Fiji for a few weeks recently and overall was reminded how poor CF is. When it works it is excellent but far too much tinkering for my liking. For single GPU my Fury non X is serving me perfectly fine at 4K with my Freesync monitor and overall is a far nicer and hassle free experience compared to CF. I would never advocate anyone using Crossfire/SLI unless they were masochists and prepared to spend most of their time tinkering with drivers and various workarounds.
That is my issue with your "comparison" and hyperbole about having a much nicer experience since going NV. It comes across a bit blinkered fanboyish because you are not comparing like for like before declaring NV the winner.
Last edited:
It's easy to say you are against many things amd or nvidia do or say but it's another to bite the bullet and buy something you want, not out of loyalty to a brand but because that suits you regardless of what people say, like you and humbug have done.
Hats off to both of you
If Polaris is what I hope it will be then i will be ditching nvidia for amd. I have always felt let down by AMD launches though so I'm not holding my breath.
Someone who can see what it is.Keep comparing mgpu v single, not the whole story.
Never stopped and thought for a minute, that I compared performance and ran single 970 v a faster single 290X over a whack of GW's titles and concluded (for me)the experience was consistently better on 970?
Think I like throwing money away?
Keep comparing mgpu v single, not the whole story.
Never stopped and thought for a minute, that I compared performance and ran single 970 v a faster single 290X over a whack of GW's titles and concluded (for me)the experience was consistently better on 970?
Think I like throwing money away?
So did I and never had any major issues with single AMD on most gameworks titles. See how that works? Show me the list of gamesworks games that were broken on ONLY AMD hardware on release day?
Last edited:
I know what you mean. LOL
AMD certainly seem to have a knack of shooting themselves in the foot. However, since the formation of RTG it seems like Raja Koduri and his band of merry men and women are getting things on the right track and moving in the right direction.
I definately see the tide turning and things starting to look good for them. So RTG please dont screw it up. My Fury Tri-X is performing brilliantly and I have had very few problems with drivers etc...
So are you saying that the majority of times those GW games were broken for both cards on release day? Not just AMD!
If that's the case then surely that's even more damning for the GW Black Box of tricks isnt it?
The funny thing is.....it works well for Nvidia in two ways
1. AMD cards dont perform well........+1 to Nvidia because AMD users get fed up of poor game ready drivers and think the grass is greener on the other side...and buy Nvidia.
2. Older Nvidia Cards don't perform well......+1 to Nvidia because their users then go out and buy newer more expensive Nvidia cards.
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
My point was there is information other than benchmarks to suggest AMD will perform better with games designed using DX12.
Of course, real gaming performance will be a better metrics to use when we have a comprehensive list of benchmarks. (This is assuming benchmark publishers are able to resist pressure from nVidia to dictate what settings are used *bitter*)
Last edited:
Fallout 4 is a bad example seen as the 970 stomps all over the 290
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/fallout_4_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html
Was that before or after the patch that fixed performance? Nice try at cherry picking but in reality 290/390 stomps all over the 970.
http://www.maximumpc.com/fallout-4-graphics-revisited-patch-13/
Last edited:
No cherry picking. It was literally just one of the top listed benchmarks from a recognised site when i googled it : /
Hardly stomping is it either, especially when the 970 still has a higher average fps at 1080p on one of those graphs
The 970 genuinely did stomp on the 290 in the link i looked at
Last edited:
So are you saying that the majority of times those GW games were broken for both cards on release day? Not just AMD!
If that's the case then surely that's even more damning for the GW Black Box of tricks isnt it?
The funny thing is.....it works well for Nvidia in two ways
1. AMD cards dont perform well........+1 to Nvidia because AMD users get fed up of poor game ready drivers and think the grass is greener on the other side...and buy Nvidia.
2. Older Nvidia Cards don't perform well......+1 to Nvidia because their users then go out and buy newer more expensive Nvidia cards.
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
Other than performance issues GW didn't cause serious gamebreaking bugs ONLY on AMD as far as I can remember. W3 for example had serious performance problems on both AMD and Nvidia hardware. GW simply impacts AMD more than Nvidia and that's were most peoples problems lie. W3 on my 980 ran appallingly bad due to very low minimum FPS with Hairworks on at even 1080p resolution despite avg FPS being ~60FPS. Turning off only hairworks gave significant performance increase.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark
Note the average FPS on 980 is 60 compared to 47 on 290X. At first glance this looks like the 980 is ~23% faster than the 290X. Now when we consider the minimums on both GPUs are 14 FPS it is clear the game is unplayable with hairworks enabled on 980 and 290X depsite the 980 being ~23% faster on average.
So yeah, AMD look worse at a quick glance but overall Nvidia are suffering just as bad and this is where gameworks is bad for all PC gamers. Also look at the GTX780 which was running slower than a 2GB GTX960 which should never have been the case. My opinion is that Gameworks black box code gives the devs zero opportunity to do proper optimisations without serious help from Nvidia. Nvidia are a business and IMHO they are clearly going to devote all their resources to ensure their current GPU line-up is shed in the best light. The problem is with Gameworks black box is that we as consumers rely on Nvidia's limited resources to ensure games are optimised well and their agenda is ALWAYS different than the actual developers (not to be confused with the publisher) and the consumers.
In short if a singe GPU vendor is solely responsible for optimising our games prior to release, then we cannot expect those optimisations to be anything other than biased.
Last edited:
No cherry picking. It was literally just one of the top listed benchmarks from a recognised site when i googled it : /
Hardly stomping is it either, especially when the 970 still has a higher average fps at 1080p
The 970 genuinely did stomp on the 290 in the link i looked at
They are pretty much identical averages at 1080p only with the 390 having higher minimums and providing smoother gameplay.
The other higher resolutions is a 5-15% lead.
Well that is good that it got fixed, because AMD looked dreadful at first.
All things being said though, they are pretty equally performing cards if you look across a whole spread of games.
I just couldn't understand why the other guy was so amazed that the 290/390 could keep up with the 970 when they are essentially in the same performance/price bracket. There are always and have always been games that one vendor does better in than the other.